Advice Filing - Pacific Power

1 Commission has ample authority to act quickly to revise or suspend Schedule 37 using
2 any of the approaches discussed, above.
3 III. CONCLUSION
4 The proposed revisions to Schedule 37, and to the associated standard power
5 purchase agreements, will ensure that PacifiCorp is not required to pay more than its full-
6 avoided cost when a QF delivers net output to a PacifiCorp load pocket. At present,
7 Schedule 37 does not address cost responsibility for third-party transmission required to
8 move excess QF generation out of a PacifiCorp load pocket. IfPacifiCorp is required to
9 pay published avoided cost rates under Schedule 37 and is required to pay the cost of
10 third-party transmission to wheel excess QF generation out of a load pocket, then
11 PacifiCorp will be systematically required to pay approximately seven percent more than
12 its full-avoided cost for certain QF output-a result prohibited by PURP A. PacifiCorp
13 respectfully requests that the Commission allow the revisions proposed in Advice No. 11-
14 all to become effective on July 27, 2011, even if the Commission determines to open an
15 investigation regarding such revisions.
established a legally enforceable obligation to sell its output to a utility at the rate in question. 131
Idaho 1, 12 (1997) ("Rosebud"). In most relevant part, the Rosebud Court stated:
Rosebud contends that IPUC's 1994 orders gave it a property interest in the form of
a legally enforceable obligation it was required to have to be entitled to the 1994
rates. Because Rosebud never made a legally enforceable obligation, as discussed
above, it never had a reasonable expectation that IPUC could not change the
methodology for determining avoided cost rates. Cf Smith v. Meridian joint Sch. Dist.
No.2, 128 Idaho 714, 722-723, 918 P.2d 583, 591-92 (1996) (requiring more than a
mere hope or expectation of continued employment to constitute a property
interest). Therefore, it never had a property interest in the 1994 rates, and due
process never attached to IPUC's consideration of the change of the 1994 rates.
In Application of San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (U 902-E) for an Ex Parte Order Approving Modifications
to Uniform Standard Offer No. 1 and Standard Offer No.3, 68 CPUC 2d 434, the CPUC noted that
published QF rates are subject to change "at any time," and that the Commission had suspended the
availability of standard offer contracts without evidentiary hearings in the past. See also OPUC Order
No. 10-132,5 (concluding that the Commission's implementation of PURPA is not subject to filing and
suspension requirements applicable to retail electric tariffs, and that the Commission may determine
the reasonableness of QF rates without an investigation or hearing).
PacifiCorp's Memorandum of Law in Support of Advice No. 11-011 19